Vajrahridaya

The view and intention is different in these different paths concerning the body of light, so even though the appearance of disappearance is the same, the result is different as the paths have a different goal in mind concerning the body of light. In Dzogchen the intention is to maintain connection with all sentient beings in order to help them better and for a longer period of time as it takes a high level being to connect to a Sambhogakaya in order to receive teachings, but it's easier to connect to a Buddha who has attained the body of light as they remain closer to our level. So, the intention of a being for attaining the body of light is that of compassion. Because the intention is exclusively revolving around compassion and done for the sake of all sentient beings instead of a desire to go to heaven or merge with a god of some type, the jalus or body of light attainment in Dzogchen is different from the appearance of it in another tradition that doesn't have the same basis for the result.

It's not an ideology, it's merely a fact, you are either a Buddha or not. The thing is, is that all Buddhas feel that all sentient beings can realize Buddhahood so they don't try to block anyone from reaching the group of Buddhas, and in fact try to help all beings get to Buddhahood as well. So, they don't exclude anyone from anything.

Only if you empty the I AM of self.

The experience is actually somewhat different, but the only words one can put to it are articulated so many times and mis-construed in so many ways. The same words seem to mean the same thing in different contexts but don't. Sunya, The experience is not the same, though I've said before that it is, it is not. It only seems the same on the outside. Internally, because the reference is different, the bliss has a vaster and more subtler point of reference of no reference. I don't know how to make it more concise of course.. I'm not a Buddha, just someone with a smigen of experience through transmission. If one really reads CHNNRs' books... it becomes quite clear that Buddhism is indeed the clearest form of reference to non-reference. Buuuuut... it's not impossible to come to the realization through other conceptual forms, if one realizes it's dependent origination/emptiness... but most seem to cling to consciousness' experience as independent origination. So, this all goes back to the Hinayana approach which is very important to understand if one is to embrace Vajrayana to the even subtler Dzogchen. I don't know how else to say this at this moment. Sunya, I know you have an understanding of this. You should read CHNNRs' Precious Vase.

No doubt.

I suppose... not easy. But, thanks. I do also see it as a blessing, to be where one has to spontaneously manifest the teachings and experiential wisdom in life and death situations in my face, has been interesting.

Wonderful! This is why I think Buddhism and Taoism are most likely the most compatible traditions on planet Earth, as well as Bon, as Bon Shamanism already had a cosmology similar to Buddhism pryer to Buddhism coming to Tibet. Some Taoists seem to get it in a Buddhist sense, and others seem to be more into personal power building and less into compassion and enlightenment. But, Taoism is a path of many, many sources... thus many different interpretations of the Tao. I love throwing the I-Ching though... it's my favorite divination method. I also love Chi-Gong and am into Martial Arts. But, I contextualize everything through the insight I've gained through internal Buddhist Tantra (Vajrayana) and Dzogchen, as I find these traditions to be the most clear in the subtler aspects of describing the experience of minds "nature" as well as the "internal" practices for it's realization, as in mental exercises for the sake of realizing minds nature directly.

Yes, of course everyone has them, but how they are worked with and understood may differ, as are the outcomes. Buddhist view of the chakras is less static than the hindu view for instance. We don't consider the elements as static with any chakra and can utilize one or other element for one or other outcome with any chakra... the same with the associated mantras.

That's ok, but yes, they are different. It's experiencing everything as submerged or merged with the light of awareness, it's an experience which can lead to mistaken views because when things come into focus after such an experience, it seems as if they are all coming from this light, when really one was just blinded by ones inner luminosity, the natural shining of mind experienced directly through focus or in samadhi states, basically from a meditative state. Those that are in a high stage of this level of experience can experience this manifesting out of luminosity moment to moment, mistaking this experience as the "light of god" manifesting everything, seeing everything as one. But, with insight into dependent origination, one sees the emptiness of this experience and sees that this experience of manifesting out of the luminosity of mind is merely a personal experience and is not a revelation of "god" or an all mighty "one" behind everything. This mistaken experience is very, very deep, because there are high level beings from other realms which will come to you and say, "yes... I am god"... and they actually think they are and then they say things and give teachings, some good, some limited, some just straight up bad as if from a "jealous god"... and these gods do actually exist in higher realms. Thus the scriptures of many theistic or monotheistic traditions. Buddhist cosmology is very exhaustive and deep, both metaphorically and literally. I do recommend getting into it as it lays out all the possible experiences and mistakes one can make on the path to higher awakening. Seeing directly that you do not inherently exist, but only relatively exist. That there is no truly self existing personal self, nor is there a truly self existing universal Self of all. That all experiences and phenomena arise inter-dependently and thus are empty of inherent substance, or essence. Even enlightenment is a relative phenomena according to any Buddha and not a revelation of an ultimate, self shining nature, but is rather an insight into inter-dependence, the luminous nature of mind which is also inter-dependent and it's emptiness, which is also dependent and not "independent." What Robert Bruce is on about is called independent origination, as if all things arise from one ultimate thing as the rooftop or core of all things. It's basically taking the experience of luminosity and ascribing ultimate Self to it, thus clinging to the experience as the "source of all things." This merely leads to long lived god realms, like those talked about in various myths from all the worlds myths, Egyptian to Hindu to Greek to Shamanistic. Buddhism is thoroughly atheistic or even polytheistic but with emptiness, thus none of these gods are ultimate.

Well, you keep talking about kundalini and chakras in the same context as Robert Bruce, which are sanskrit terms known from Indian traditions. The thing is, without right influence, most spiritually inclined people will only reach Brahma realms due to the strong attachment to self, merely expanding this attachment to include everything as most traditions do without the insight of the 1st noble truth. The expansion of self paths into a universal Self is easier and more accessible because this is the root of samsaric cycling and we've been passing from lower to higher realms throughout beginningless cosmic cycles throughout beginningless lifetimes, so going from low to high back to low to high is what we've been doing naturally. The insight of Buddhahood is almost, "unnatural" in a sense... from this perspective at least.

I agree, though what Robert Bruce is teaching is mostly just traditional hindu tantra. Which for a Buddhist is not conducive to Buddhahood, but merely powerful god realms and high altered states of consciousness.

Only if you experience the vajrayana intention for the practice which has to be conjoined with contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination. The same technique is utilized in Hindu Tantra, merging with the deity, but without contemplation of emptiness and dependent origination, thus only luminosity is realized but not emptiness through these traditions. So, Buddha non-dual realization without substance is different from Brahma non-dual realization of Eternal substance which is what Robert Bruce is talking about. According to Buddhism, this only leads to long lived god realms and formless bliss realms but not complete liberation from the cycle of ignorance becoming. So... no it's not the same. Which is why the 1st noble truth is very important for realization which is "right view" and has everything to do with dependent origination and understanding it's inner meaning as experiential emptiness.

Yes, but you dissolve this into emptiness through contemplation of dependent origination, therefore one does not fall into an extreme of Eternalism which is what Robert Bruce teaches. This is merely a technique for mental alignment, but conjoined with contemplation of experiential emptiness, Brahma pride does not overtake one, and instead one has vajra confidence based on integration of enlightened bliss of luminous mind and emptiness.

Yes, I think so. I was just repeating what my friend said to me last night before I posted, he said to me, "Jaro, you are a good person in a world filled with bad." I did not take it literally because I always see the good in people, and move from there... when projection of negative intention comes from their bodies I see it, but actively deflect or dissolve with mantra and peace. This causes the energy of the intention to transform before it can actualize as physical action from them. I'm able to calm them on the level of thought energy pryer to physical activity. It's a gift I learned from doing intense practice in the ghetto.

Dependent origination is not merely cause and effect. You don't understand how flawed and merely intellectual your interpretation is. It doesn't seem to me that you have a good internal understanding of luminous emptiness in reference to dependent origination.

This is all substance non-dualism and not the same realization as Vajrayana.

Exactly, there is no realization of emptiness or the inner meaning of dependent origination, which is not different from the inner meaning of emptiness in Buddhism. What Robert Bruce is on about is the Brahma realm stuff, formless, all pervasive bliss leading to heaven realms, but not Buddhahood.

You are very welcome! It's good to read and read and read... during a time. I read (past tense) countless books, 100 to 200 pages a day even during intense practice in order to get to know the anthropological history of various traditions' spiritual masters!

Well... you are a product of your own experience, and vise versa... your experience is a product of your view. Really... it's wonderful to at least try to find a great teacher that has fully embodied the teachings you wish to embody. Seriously... The teacher will appear when the crack in the karmic shell has been opened. The teacher may come from other realms as well... who knows?? You will have your path... just definitely be sensible about your intentions... in everything! The right fruit will follow.

I just put my mind below my feet, from here I'm able to do lots of things, both positive or selfish, like control people. I'm also able to hold my personal ground very well from here. I hope to respond with this power more positively as I empty my egoic personal response system. I can do it from any position, and it has nothing to do with where my body is placed. I think this has everything to do with how much meditation and contemplation I have done. Ok... I've also been doing yoga since the womb... that helped. My first physical movements as a child were actually yoga postures... strange as that may seem. But, my mother did yoga the entire time I was in her womb... and before. So maybe that can be understood. I wasn't very good at rooting during my youth though, I was more of a space cadet big picture type, having very few social skills. That has changed though... only through "cultivation."

I'm from very desolate areas in the USA, where violence and anger abound. I have found that genuine AHIMSA can sense himsa even before it manifests through a body... and can transform it by merely remaining more steady and powerful in Ahimsa, turning the violent into non-violent right in front of me. Even if just a moment ago, they meant to hurt... by relaxing into the ENERGY of ahimsa... which is an energy, a realization of inter-dependence, a wisdom or insight into genuine compassion, the volatile, and I mean really volatile... become docile, even if just for the moment they are in front of you. They may wander away, thinking... "wow... that dude must be an alien?" But, at least for that moment, my practice has influenced someone for the better... even if they don't really learn anything about themselves by using the excuse of, "he must be an alien." Being good in a world filled with bad is quite the challenge.

I fully agree! There is nothing like the guidance of a truly realized master!!! According to my own experience, as well as scripture, this is paramount! Even if you are to be the light of your own lamp... it takes positive influence to know how this is done. The best Master teaches you not how to be a disciple, but how to be a Master, yet one follows the other. The best Master is/was also the best disciple.

I've heard only good things about Chokyi-la.

This is true, which is why it's important to realize dependent origination/emptiness, thus cutting through this type of pride, like Muhammad had for example. He had a vision, got all psyched up, then went out and started murderous war on everyone that didn't believe that his vision was the one and only truth. If one realizes dependent origination, one realizes that there is not one and only truth that is even worth killing for. There are infinite truths and their emptiness, which is not even inherent as if things and ideas arise dependently, their emptiness is also dependent. One could say that this is saying the same thing, but... it's not if one has experiential understanding of the words. Let's just talk it out instead. It's much more enlightening than sword and blood.